Its Hard to be Non-Partisan

When one files the necessary paperwork to declare one's candidacy for the School Board in Minnesota, one is not required to declare a political party affiliation. This is not true in all 50 states, and I am not sure when or why the decision was made in Minnesota.

It is naive to think that just because no party affiliation is listed on the ballot that the people who seek and are elected to these seats have no political leanings. Indeed, I would not want such disinterested people overseeing our school systems. Anyone who thinks that "non-partisan" means "non-political," should think again.

It is difficult for me, therefore, as one with strong political interests to watch the events in St Paul and in Washington DC, and be non-partisan. If the words "conservative" or "Republican" had appeared next to my name on the ballot, would I have gotten more votes in 2006, or less? Am I to put my personal beliefs aside just because I did not have to first be nominated by a party organization in order to get my name on the ballot? I think not.

So while I recognize the economic realities facing our community, school district, state and country - indeed the world, I refuse to pretend that I agree with the approach our government is taking to deal with the problem. Even if it means a few more shekels for next year's school district budget.

Spending nearly a trillion dollars on pork projects under the guise of economic stimulus is irresponsible. This is money that the people who are spending it will never have to pay back. If they actually had to pay for all of this stuff, they wouldn't be so eager to spend the money in the first place. I call it political myopia.

It's not their money they are spending - the government doesn' t have any money of their own, they have to tax you and me to get it. In this case, they will have to tax people who haven't been born yet in order to pay for this "stimulus" package, which has not and will not "fix" what is wrong with the economy.

Last November the media and the other party told us that America had voted for "change." So far the only change I have seen in Washington is from traditional tax & spend liberalism to a "new" philosophy of spend, then tax. Now that the "stimulus" bill has passed and been signed, suddenly there is a budget crisis which needs to be addressed with tax increases. This is not a change I can detect - this is the same old song & dance. To camouflage this behind "fiscal responsibility" is unconscionable.

So far the only change I have seen in Washington is from traditional tax & spend liberalism to a "new" philosophy of spend, then tax.

The more I learn about the money set aside for school districts, the less I like it. Certainly public education needs budget help, but lets not saddle the grandkids of today's students with the bill, and lets not pretend these dollars aren't tied to liberal social-engineering and wealth-redistribution projects.

Why not pump some money into the schools that can be spent on education? Instead of giving us a portion of what is needed based on the poverty levels in our district. Is the message that we should try to attract more poor people to Waconia if we want more funding? What sense does that make? It has never made sense to me and I am afraid it never will.

Elected office is a sacred trust. I was elected to be a caretaker of School District 110, and to the best of my ability make sure that it is in better condition when I hand it over to the next person elected to my seat on the Board. The President of the United States and the Speaker of the House would do well to remember this.